Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

In your submission you appear, to me at least, to be politely saying that many members of the IRB are incompetent and that improvements are needed, including having a better appeal mechanism. Would this be an accurate reading, and if so, are improvements to the PRRA really the most effective solution to the problems facing refugee applicants in Canada?

[Richard Goldman]

We didn't say in our brief that many members of the IRB are incompetent. What we said was there is scope for human error, and the wide variation in acceptance rates seems to confirm that the IRB, just as any institution, is open to human error.

Improving the PRRA is one important way of addressing any human error that could be committed in the IRB; however, we have a series of other recommendations, including the implementation of the refugee appeal division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

If we were to follow all of your recommendations, we would move the PRRA into the IRB, therefore streamlining the process and using the expertise developed by IRB; establish a refugee appeal division to give the opportunity for refugee claimants to appeal based on facts and law, as recommended earlier; then change the regulation to allow the stay of removal during the Federal Court of appeal--

[Richard Goldman]

It would be to eliminate it.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

--to eliminate it, yes. So what process does it take in order to change that? Is that a difficult change? Is that a change that's supported by a majority of the refugee advocacy organizations? What process do we need to take in order to make that change? Is it just changing the immigration regulation? How can we do that?

[Richard Goldman]

For the first part, implementing the refugee appeal division, you simply have to implement legislation that's on the books.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

It's straightforward.

[Richard Goldman]

Moving the PRRA to the IRB would require reopening the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I believe it's fair to say that would be the majority wish of the advocacy community. The Canadian Council for Refugees, in its presentation on IRPA, at the time was in favour of the PRRA's being handled by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

So if we actually come out with a package deal, so to speak, to do all three of those things at the same time, how long do you think it would take to implement such a process?

[Richard Goldman]

I don't think the obstacle is in the mechanism of it; it's in the legislative and political will. However, the first part is already on the books, so I would say it would be better to go ahead with the first part rather than wait for the other parts and do it all together.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Okay, I hear you, because you never know--they might do the second part and then not implement the RAD again, as we've seen earlier.

Moving the PRRA into IRB is really just an administrative change. It doesn't require an order in council legislative change of any kind?

[Richard Goldman]

It seems to me it requires reopening the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, because there are elements of delegation and so on. The whole structure is based on this being done by civil servants, as opposed to by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I see. So the first step is really to establish the Refugee Appeal Division, then move the PRRA into IRB, then remove the allowance of stay of removal during the Federal Court appeal.

[Richard Goldman]

As far as I understand, one and three were always intended to go together. That is, as soon as the refugee appeal division was to be implemented, the regulations were to eliminate a stay of removal after that, even if the person applied to the Federal Court.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I see. Thank you. That is now very clear.

I have just one last question. Has there been any financial analysis through which any of your organizations has come up with an estimate to show, if we are changing the Federal Court so they can't stay, how much money the federal government will save, not necessarily on the immigration side but on the court side, given how expensive it is for the Federal Court to go through all of that process?

[Richard Goldman]

That analysis has not been done. It would involve looking at how many unsuccessful leave applications the Federal Court is doing, how many hours the judges and their support staff are spending on average, and multiplying that by their salaries. It seems to me it's many millions of dollars, but the analysis has not been done, to be honest.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Alghabra, please.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon to both of you.

Thank you very much for joining us here today. It's great to have such great experts on this topic to help us navigate through this matter.

I'd like to step back even further and look at the whole process broadly. From where I stand and from what I've been observing over the last few years, we have what appears to be a fundamental flaw in how we deal with refugee applications and how the process is being dealt with, from the appeal mechanism to the initial handling, to the time it takes for an individual's claim to be heard. Sometimes it's tempting for an individual who may not have a legitimate claim to abuse the system because it gives them an opportunity to stay here for a very long time and, as you said, appeal to the Federal Court, and do other things.

First of all, what do you think is the fundamental flaw? Is there more than one, or do you not agree that there is a fundamental flaw in how we deal with refugee applications?

[Richard Goldman]

I think we have a lot to be proud of in Canada. Whatever criticisms we have, when we put them in an international context we see that there are many positive features. A lot of our comments and criticisms are to build on what we have, which again has many excellent features. Things we have brought forward in the past include, for example, the nomination process for Immigration and Refugee Board members, on which there seems to have been a great deal of progress in the last few years; the absence of the appeal; and a better or more independent means of assessing risk at the end of the process.

On the delay, we think the way we have presented the introduction of the appeal and the absence of a stay of removal to the Federal Court will help to streamline the system and move people ahead more quickly, whether to get landing or to be removed from Canada. On the ground, a lot of the delays come well after the Immigration and Refugee Board, where people are waiting around an uncertain time for their pre-removal risk assessment, and then even for the decision on the pre-removal risk assessment. So for those who are concerned about delays and the cost to social services, a lot of it has nothing to do with the IRB; it comes with just waiting around for administrative decisions.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I'm glad you brought that up. We have a lot to be proud of in this country, and Canadians feel very proud of how we deal with immigrants and refugees. We recognize our obligations on a humanitarian basis and our obligations to international treaties. Thank you for saying that.

I also agree with your strong recommendations on the implementation of the appeal division. You addressed this throughout the day, but it is important to mention it again. Many people say that the PRRA process is a substitute for the appeal mechanism, that a lot of the failed claimants have that option, and that the officer who does the examination basically reviews the case and looks for opportunities where the IRB judge made a mistake, perhaps to reverse the decision.

How do you respond to these claims that PRRA is an appeal mechanism?

[Claudette Cardinal]

It's possibly the only option people have.

I'm sorry, what was your last statement?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I stated first that I'm in agreement with implementing the appeal division, but we need to respond to the claims that PRRA is already an appeal mechanism and there is no need for the installation or implementation of—

[Claudette Cardinal]

But it's not. You said that people look at the IRB decision and think maybe a mistake was made, but they don't do that. The say, “The IRB found this person to be not credible, therefore we don't believe anything the person says”. In answer to either Madame Faille or to Mr. Gravel, I said that a PRRA officer once said to me, “There are many times when we would like to grant these PRRA applications, but we feel that if we do we're saying the IRB didn't do a good job. We're in a bad position, so we say there's no risk and this person can go back home.” That's maybe not the public perception, but that is what's happening.